3. the third use is threefold 2016 - amazon web servicesfiles-theology.s3.amazonaws.com/2016...

1

Thethirduseisthreefold–thedoctrineoftheuseofthelawfortheregenerate

Rev.MagnusN.Sørensen

OLCCConvocationAugust4th-5th,2016

IntroductionWhenIstudiedinFortWaynein2003-2004theissueofthethirduseofthelawwashuge.ScottMurrayhadjustpublishedhisworkonthehistoryofthedebateinAmericanLutheranism.JamesNestingenwasinvitedtospeaktotheseminarianswhileIwasthere.TherewasahugedivideamongthestudentsbetweenthosewhowereinfavoroftheradicalLutheranismandthosewhoweren’t.

WhileIwasactiveinthedebatesamongtheseminarians,Ididn’treadMurraysbook.Notuntillater.HedoesagoodjobindescribingthedifferentpositionsinAmericanLutheranism.

InDenmarkasalsoinGermany,Ibelieve,studentsoftheologyarenormallytaughtthatLutherdidnotteachathirduseofthelaw.LutheranorthodoxyisseenasaderivationfromLutherinthisandmanyotherissues.WhilethereissometruthtothatwhenitcomestolaterLutheranorthodoxy,asisseeninthedoctrinesofelectionandtheLordsSupper,weshouldbecarefulnottofollowtheopinionsoftheexistentialistLutheransthatLutherisagreatmisunderstood1.

ThosewhowrotetheFormulaofConcordwerestudentsofthegreatreformer,andwhileonecanarguethattherearedifferences,Lutherdidnothaveacompletelydifferentworldview.Hewasnotamodernexistentialistwhosuddenlyfoundhimselfinthe16thcenturyandwasnotabletoexplaintothesestupidrenaissancepeoplethattheydidn’thavetotakethebibleorGod’slawsoseriously.

ItistruethatsomeoftheearlyLuther-interpretersmustbewrongandwemustjudgethat,butIwillarguethatif we were to reconstruct Luther’s doctrine in such a way that none of his contemporaries with the samebackgroundasLutherwouldbeabletounderstandit,wehavefailed.

LegalismandantinomianismThetopicofthethirduseofthelawtouchesonthetwotendenciesthatseemtoattackthetruedoctrineagainandagain:legalismandantinomianism.ThePhariseesandtheSadduceesrepresentthesetwotendencies.Atthetimeofthereformation,theLutherandoctrineofthelawwasattackedbothbyantinomianismandflacianismontheonesideandsynergism,majorismandosiandrianismontheotherside.

1 SeePaulson,StevenD.LutheranTheology.1.sted.DoingTheology.London,UK:BloomsburyT&TClark,2011.P.5

2

Later, the churchwasattackedbypietism,whichaccusedorthodoxyofbeing too laxonmorals. Thencamemoravianism,whichpartlywasabranchofpietismandpartlyareactionagainstpietismthattriedtogetfreefromthelegalismandmoralismofpietism.ItdidtrytofocusonthecrossinsteadoftherenewaloftheChristian,butwithout the focusonthemeansofgrace, itendedup focusingonthesubjective feelingsof thebelieverinstead.

Legalismandantinomianismbothendupinsubjectivism.ThelegalistendsupintryingtoappeaseGodwithhisgoodworks.Theantinomianendsupinamerepsychologicalunderstandingofthegospelinwhichbothlawandgospelarereducedtotheirfunctionsandderivedoftheircontent.

Both legalism and antinomianism often rise in reaction to each other.Whenwe react to either legalism orantinomianismwearealwaysinthedangerofendingintheother.Wemustbecarefulsowedon’tfollowtheoverreactionsofothers.

AlittlehistoryofthecontroversyThecontroversy regarding the thirduseof the lawhasbotha reformationalandamodernhistory.The firstantinomian controversy was between Luther and Agricola among others. After Luther s dead a secondcontroversybrokeout.SomehadoverreactedtoGeorgeMajor´sfalsedoctrineofthenecessityofgoodworks.AmongthemwereMusculuswholaterchangedhismindandendeduphelpingtoputtheSDtogether.2

TheFormulaofConcordtriedtosolvethereformationalcontroversyregardingthethirduseofthelaw.Somehadarguedthattheregeneratedidnotneedthelawandthattherewasthereforenothirduseofthelaw.Lutherwasalreadydead,andthecontroversyincludedadiscussiononwhetherornotLuthertaughtathirduseofthelaw.

ThemoderncontroversybeganwhenWernerElertsdisputedwhetherLuthertaughtathirduseofthelaw.HeclaimedthatthetextfromthesecondAntinomianDisputationwhichmentionedthethirduseofthelawwasaforgery.3

ThisclaimbyWernerElerthasbeenthepositionofmostLuther-Scholarssince.Thosewhostilldefendathirduseof the law,have claimed that Lutherwhilenotusing the term,did in fact employa thirduse.Recently,ConcordiaPublishingHousepublishedabookbyEdwardA.Engelbrecht,whichshowshowLutherconsistentlytaughtauseofthelawfortheregenerate.4

2

Klug,EugeneF.A.,andOttoF.Stahlke.GettingintotheFormulaofConcord:AHistoryandDigestoftheFormula:HistoricalNotesandDiscussionQuestions.St.Louis:ConcordiaPub.House,1977.ReprintedByConcordiaTheologicalSeminaryPress1999.p.473 Engelbrecht,Edward.FriendsoftheLaw:Luther'sUseoftheLawfortheChristianLife.St.Louis,MO:ConcordiaPub.House,2011.p.156

4 SeeespeciallyEngebrecht2011chapter16inwhichthefindingsaresummarizedandalistofquotesfromdifferentperiodesinLutherslifearegiven.

3

Elertsawthelawasinherentlyaccusing.Hedidnotdefinethelawaccordingtoitscontentbutaccordingtoitsfunction.Everythingthataccusedmanwasthelaw.

ThemoderncontroversywasimportedtoAmerica.ItwaspartofthebattleinMissouriintheseventies,whenSaintLouisprofessorswhereinspiredbyElertandotherexistentialistLutherans.

ScottMurrayhasshowninhisworkonthemoderncontroversy,howthosewhorejectedthethirduseofthelawendedupputtinglegalelementsintothegospel.5

TheELCAandthechurchesthatformeditwerealsoinfluencedbyElert.Forde’stheologyfollowstheoneofElertclosely.

StevenPaulsonfollowsFordebutnotentirely.OnsomepointsheisbetterthanForde,itseems.Hecertainlyappealsmore to conservative Lutherans. JohnPless fromFortWayneSeminaryendorseshisbook, LutheranTheology.PaulsonhasalsobeeninvitedtoaconservativeLutheranconferenceinNorwaythisyear,Inoticed.InadiscussionwithaNorwegianassociatedwiththisconference,theNorwegianclaimedthatStevenPaulsonwasnotreallyagainstthethirduseofthelaw.Thoughhewasagainsttheterm,hewasnotagainstthedoctrine.IhadreadMurraysbookandsomereviewsofPaulson’sbook,butIhadtostudyitfurther.

CarlBeckwithinhisresponsetoMurrayssurveyofthemoderncontroversyhaspointedouthowthemoderncontroversyhasmostlydealtwithLutherandMelanchthon:

So much of the twentieth-century debate recounted by Murray focused on Luther andMelanchthon,andwhetherMelanchthonrecastLuther’stheology.Whatisnotdiscussedenough,however,ishowtheConcordists,whowerebynomeanssympathetictotheextremePhillipists,understoodtheplaceof thethirduse inLutherantheology.MartinChemnitz, inparticular,hasquiteabitsosayonthethirduseand, itshouldbeemphasized,sawnodiscontinuitybetweenArticleVIoftheFormulaofConcordandLuther.6

BeckwithgivesabriefaccountofChemnitz’explanationofthethirduseinhisLoci.Withthispaper,IhopetocontinuethisbysurveyingChemnitz’doctrineofthelawespeciallyasitrelatestothethirduse.IwillalsogiveabriefsurveyofStevenPaulson’sdoctrineofthelawinordertocomparethetwo.BythisIhopetoclarifythemaindifferencesbetweenthedoctrineoftheConcordistsandthedoctrineofStevenPaulsonasanexampleofasomewhatconservativemodern-daydenierofthethirduseofthelaw.

5 SeeMurray,ScottR.Law,Life,andtheLivingGod:TheThirdUseofLawinModernAmericanLutheranism.St.Louis,MO:ConcordiaPub.House,2002.Kindle.

6 Beckwith,CarlL.LookingintotheHeartofMissouri:Justification,Sanctification,andtheThirdUseoftheLaw(Text)

OriginallypublishedinConcordiaTheologicalQuarterlyVolume:69Number:3in2005,p.293-307.http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/beckwithheartofmissouri.pdfp.294

4

Ihavechosen to focuson theirdoctrineof the lawandnotgo toomuch into thedoctrinesofman, sinandsanctification.Ithinkthereisalottoresearchheretooandtheissuesareverymuchrelatedtoeachother.Fornow,Ishallkeepwiththedictumnonmulta,sedmultum.

TheproblemTodiagnosetheproblemwhichwewanttosolveisabigpartoftheproblemhere.Whileitiseasytostatethatthestateofthecontroversyiswhetherornotthereisathirduseofthelaw,thisistoosimple.Noteveryoneagreesonwhatthethirduseofthelawis.Wedon’tagreeonwhatweeitheraffirmorrefuse.Thisinprinciplemeansthatsomemightagree,whiledisagreeingabouttheterms,whileothersmightdisagree,whiletheyagreeontheterms.Wethereforehavetoagreeonwhatthethirduseofthelawis.

InolderMissourisynodtheology,ithasbeendesignatedasthedidacticuseofthelaw.Thereareotherswhowouldrejectadidacticuseofthelaw,butstillconfessathirduseofthelawseenasafirstandseconduseofthelawforChristians.Ithinkbothoftheseviewsarewrong.IntheformulaofConcordandinMartinChemnitzaswewillsee,thethirduseofthelawistheuseofthelawfortheregenerate.

Thosewhoattackthethirduseofthelaw,claimthatathirduseofthelawimpliesthatthelawcanbeonlyafriendlyguide,whichdoesnotaccuse.Thedefendersofthethirduseclaimthattheattackersmakethefallacyofsayingthatifthelawalwaysaccuses,itonlyaccuses.Itisnotcleartome,whetherbothoftheseclaimsarestrawmen,butbothofthemshowthatsomeclarificationofwhatisactuallymeantbythethirduse,isneededinthisdebate.

Chemnitz`doctrineofthelawandthethirduseChemnitzonthelaw(LocusVIII)

InhisarticlecommentingonScottMurraystreatmentinLaw,LifeandtheLivingGod,CarlL.BeckwithpointstothecontributionofMartinChemnitztothethirduseofthelaw.BeckwithpointstoChemnitz`treatiseonGod`sworks,whichwasincludedalsoinhisLoci. IwouldlikehowevertobeginwithChemnitz’doctrineofthelaw,whereheactuallytreatstheconceptofthethirduseofthelaw

TheLocusbeginswithMelanchthon’streatmentinhis1559Loci,towhichChemnitz’Lociisacommentary.WecannotnecessarilymakeChemnitzresponsibleforeverythingMelanchthonwrote,wemusthoweverexpecthimtoclarify,whenhemightagreewithMelanchthon.

MelanchthonclearlydefinesthelawofGodashiseternalwill:

“ButthelawofGodisaneternalandimmovableruleofthedivinemindandajudgmentagainstsin,ajudgmentimpressedonhumanminds,oftenproclaimedbythevoiceofGod….”7

ChemnitzseemstoagreewithMelanchthon,whenheconsiderstheorderofthelociofthelawandsin:

7 Chemnitz,Martin,andJacobA.O.Preus.LociTheologici.St.Louis:ConcordiaPub.House,1989.p.331

5

“Forit isuselesstodealwiththedoctrineofsin,norcanweunderstandwhatsinis,unlessit isshownthatwhatisnotinconformitywiththeruleofrighteousnessinthemindofGodissin.”8

This is clearly in line with bothMelanchthon and the older western tradition from Thomas Aquinas, whichgroundsthelawintheeternalmindofGodandnotonlyinanarbitrarywillofGod.Notealsoboththedistinctionandtheconnectionbetweenthelocusonthelawandonsin.Theyarenotthesame.Thelawisnotonlyaccusingsin.Itisrevealingtherulebywhichsinmustbejudged.Thelawrevealsacontent,whichdefines,whatsinis.

Chemnitzalsonotestheconnectionbetweenthedoctrineofthelawandthedoctrineofjustification,whichisalsoimportant,whenwearedealingwithdeniersofthethirduseofthelaw:

“FortheGospelconsistsintheproclamationofthemeritsandbenefitsoftheSonofGod,butthesearedefinedintermsofthefulfillmentoftherighteousnessofthelawanddeliverancefromthecurseofthelaw”9

Thedoctrineofjustificationcannotbeunderstoodwithoutunderstandingthelaw.Chemnitzisnotjusttalkingaboutthelawsprecedingworkofaccusinghere,butthatthedoctrineofjustificationisdefinedinlegaltermsortouseatermfromPaulsonaccordingtothe“legalscheme”.Justificationhappensaccordingtotherighteousnessofthelaw,whichisfulfilledvicariouslybyChrist.

Chemnitzalsowarnsagainstbothlegalismandantinomianisminconnectionwiththedoctrineofthelaw:

Therefore,whenwefeeleitherEpicureanindifferenceofpharisaicprideinregardtothedoctrineofjustification,wemustgobacktothedoctrineoftheLaw.10

Thedoctrineofthelawisactualtheremedyagainstbothantinomianismandlegalism.Thelawthereforeisnotthesameaslegalism.

Chemnitz goes on to define the term law, which is used differently in Scripture before he proceeds to thedefinitionofthelawinthelocusonthelaw.

ThedifferentdefinitionsinScriptureincludeanimpellingforce(thelawofsinRom7:25),therevelationofGodingeneral,thebooksoftheOldTestament,theOldTestamentinoppositiontotheNewTestament,theDecaloginoppositiontotheGospelorfaith,thereignofthelawinoppositiontograce.ItishelpfultomakeclearthatScripture uses the word “law” in different meanings, especially since part of the problem with radicalLutheranismisthatthesedifferentmeaningsareoftenmixedtogether.

InthenextchapterontheDefinitionoftheLaw,Chemnitzinitiallymakesclear,whathesetsouttodefineinthischapter:

8 Chemnitz,1989p.331



6

InthedefinitionoftheLawitisnotaskedwhattheLawisinageneralsense,norwhatishumanlawornaturallaw.Buttheproperquestionisthis:Whatdoestheword“Law”meaninthislocus,thatiswhatisthemorallaw?11

ChemnitzcontinuestoputforthdifferentdefinitionsofthelawfromAugustinethroughAquinastoMelanchthon.Manyofthesedefinitionsincludetheeternalityofthelaw.

Chemnitz takes note of the two definitions given by Melanchthon in his Loci and his Examination of theOrdinands:

Earlydefinition:“ThelawofGodisateachinggivenbyGodwhichprescribeswhatwearetobeandwhatwearetodoandnottodo,requiringperfectobediencetowardGodandpronouncingthatGodisangryandpunisheswitheternaldeaththosewhodonotpresentperfectobedience.

Later definition: “Themoral law is the eternal and unmovablewisdomofGod and the rule ofrighteousnessinHimdistinguishingrightfromwrong,revealedtomenatcreationandafterwardsoftenrepeatedandexplainedbythedivinevoice,sothatwemayknowthatGodexists,whatheislike,thathebindsallrationalcreaturesanddemandsthattheyconformtoGod,anddestroysallwhodonotconformtoGodunlesstherebeforgivenessandreconciliationwithGodforthesakeofHisSon,theMediator.”12

Chemnitz notes 4 things about Melanchthon’s two definitions: 1) Melanchthon calls the law eternal andunmovabletodistinguishitfromtheceremonialandcivillaw2)thatthelawisnotonlyrevealedintheDecalogbutalreadyincreationandoftenrepeatedinScripture3)thatitdistinguishesrightfromwronganddemandsperfectobedience,4)thatitpromisestopunishtransgressorsunlesstheyareforgiven.13

ChemnitzdefendsMelanchthonagainstthosewhosaythatthepromiseofeternallifetothosewhokeepthelawshouldalsobeincludedinthedefinition:

TheLawgivenbyGodshouldbeconsidered in twoways,either in itself,as inDeut.11:26and30:19,“Ihavesetbeforeyoulifeanddeath,ablessingandacurse”;orasreferredtoournaturecorruptedandweakenedbysinasinRom7:10,“Thecommandmentwhichwasordaineduntolifehasbeenfoundformetobeuntodeath.”14

Thuswhile Chemnitz ends upwith a definitionof the Law that seems to include its accusations, but not itspromisesofeternallife,thisisbecauseheconsidersthelawinrelationtohumanbeingsandnotinitself.Thelawinitselfincludesboth.

11 Chemnitz,1989p.33412 Chemnitz,1989p.335


14 Chemnitz,1989p.335-336

7

Soone couldargue that according toChemnitz the law is accusingbydefinition, and thathehas functionaldefinitionofthelawlikeWernerElertandtheradicalLutherans.

ChemnitzclearlyseesthelawastherevelationoftheeternalwillofGod,whichonlythreatenstopunish,whenthereissintopunish.Consideredbyitselfthelawpromiseseithereternallifeoreternalpunishment,dependinginwhetherornotpeopleshowperfectobedience.SotheLawisnotaccusingbydefinition.Itonlyaccuses,whenitsdemandsarenotmet.Itdoeshoweverthreatenbydefinition,justasitpromiseseternallifetothosewhoobeyit.

WhenChemnitzcontinuesandenumerates thepoints thatmustbe included in thedefinitionof the law,hesummarizeshispointregardingthelawsblessingsandcurses:

(5)TheLaw,indeed,setsbeforeuslifeandblessing,butbecausenooneobservesandfulfillstheLaw,weneithercannoroughttoseeklifeinit.(6)ThereforetheLawisproperlytheministrationofdeath,theknowledgeofsin,workingofwrath.15

Again,thelawaccuses,becausewedonotfulfillthelaw,andnotinandofitself.

Chemnitzcontinuesinchapter3ofthislocuswithatreatmentoftheperfectobedience,whichthelawrequires.Inthischapter,herefutesthosewhothinkitpossibletofulfillthelawinthislife.ChemnitzarguesagainstthePharisees,thePelagiansandthePapalists.

Wewillnotdelveintothesediscussions,butonlynotethatwhichrelatestothetopicofthethirduseofthelawandantinomianism.Chemnitzexplainstheuseofthedoctrineofthefulfillmentofthelaw:

WeshouldnotusethepretextthatbecausetheLawisimpossibletofulfill,thereforeweshouldexcuse our carnal security, sloth, heedlessness, or assumed omission. Epicureans corrupt thedoctrinebysayingthatnoonecansatisfythelawofGod;therefore,letusnotfollowtheleadingoftheHolySpirit;letusnotbezealousforgoodworks;thereisnoneedforanyobedienceonthepartoftheregenerate.16

This is a temptation,which caneasily follow,when the law is reduced to its accusatory function. If the solefunctionofthelawistoaccuse,onecanbeginexcusingsins.ThereisacloseconnectionbetweentheChristiansstrivingforgoodworksandthecontinualrepentanceoftheChristian.

ChapterIVisabouttheclassificationofthelawsasmoral,ceremonialorcivil.ThisdistinctionisimportantforthenextchapteronTheAbrogationoftheLawwhichisanimportantchapterinrelationtooursubject.

ChemnitzprovesthattheceremonialandthecivillawofMoseshavebeenabrogated.Butregardingthemorallaw,Chemnitzwrites:

Butagain,becausethemoral lawwasnotgivenforonlyoneparticulartime,astheother lawswere,butistheeternalwisdomandruleofrighteousnessinGod,untotheobedienceofwhichboth



8

Christandtheapostlesteachthatbelieversshouldberenewed,thereforeitisnecessarythatwedeterminethedifferencebetweentheabrogationofthemorallawandtheothers.Forthemorallawhasnotbeenabolishedinsuchawaythatitcanbeentirelyomitted,norputawayastheotherlawsofMoses,butithasbeenabrogated:(1)aspertainingtojustification.IndeedGal.3:21,weread,“Alawwasnotgivenwhichcouldgivelife,sothatrighteousnessmightbefromthelaw”;(2)aspertainingtothecurse,Gal.3:13,Christhasredeemedusfromthecurseofthe law”; (3)aspertainingtotherigorofitsdemands.17

Theabrogationofthemorallawisnotanabrogationofthelawitself,butonlyanabrogationofthelawasitrelatestomanasanunjustifiedsinner.Themorallawisstillthe“eternalwisdomandruleoftherighteousnessinGod”,whilethecivilandceremoniallawswereonlymeantforatime.

Chemnitzcontinues:

Butas itpertains to the teachingandobedience themoral lawhasnotbeenabrogatedbut iseternal and, asUrbanusRhegius [Luther’sWorks, Amer. Ed. 26.125] so beautifully puts it, theabrogation of the moral law did not cause any change in the eternal wisdom and rule ofrighteousnessinGod.ButbecausetheSonofGodtookuponHimselftheobligationofthelawasitpertainsbothtotheobediencetothelawandthepunishmentoftheLaw,bythisabrogationthereisproducedforussuchachangethatwearefreedfromthecurseandtheHarshdemandsofthelaw.18

TheeternallawhasnotbeenchangedbytheabrogationofthelawinChrist,butonlythecurseandtheharshnessofthelaw.Christfulfilledthelawandtookuponhimthecurseofthelaw.Hedidredeemusthroughthelegalscheme,asPaulsonwouldcallit.

HowdoesChemnitzprovethatthemorallawhasnotbeenabrogatedasitpertainstoteachingandobedience?

Chemnitz gives scriptural support for thisopinion.Hepoints to the fact thatwhenScripture talks about theabrogationofthecivilandceremoniallaws,ituseswordsmeaningforexamplebreakordestroy,abolish,change,vanishetc.,butwhenspeakingaboutthemorallawitusesdifferentlanguage,namelybeingfreedfromthelaw(Rom8,2),beingredeemedfromthecurseofthe law.Chemnitzexplainsthisdifference,commentingonCol2:14,whichspeaksabouttherecordofdebtbeingdestroyed:

NotehowpreciselyPaulspeaks.Hementionsthecurse,thewrittenchargeagainstus,deathandsin,whenhespeaksabouttheabrogationofthemorallaw.Likewisehedoesnotsaythatthemorallawisdeadorabrogated,butthatwearedead,deliveredfromthelaw,Rom7:6,sothathereferstothefactthatachangehastakenplace,notinthestandingruleoftherighteousnessofGod,butinus,aswehavesaidbefore.19




9

Sothelawstillstandsandwillstandineternity.TheeternalandessentialrighteousnessofGoddoesnotchange,but itsdemandsare fulfilledbyour representative,JesusChrist.Themoral law isnotchanged,asChemniotzcontinues:

Nowthatthemorallawwasnotgivenonlyforaparticulartime,astheotherlawsofMoseswere,buttobetheeternalstatementandstandardofGodwhichisnotchangedbythecircumstancesandthatitpertainstodoctrineandobedienceinthewaythathasbeensaidisprovedbythesearguments:(1)BecauseitistheeternalandimmovablewisdomandstandardoftherighteousnessofGod.(2)Becausefromthebeginningoftheworldithasalwaysbeenproclaimedinthechurch,evenbeforeMoses…(3)BecausetheknowledgeofthemorallawintheveryactofcreationwasplacedbyGodintothemindsofmen,theycannotabolishthisknowledgewhileitremainsinforce.(4)TheapostlesclearlyteachthatbelieversarerenewedbytheHolySpirituntoobedienceofthepreceptsofthemorallaw.(5)Inlifeeternaltherewillbeatrueandperfectconformityoftheelecttowiththemorallaw.Inthiswaythelawwillenduretoalleternity.20

Chemnitzhere shows,how the law isboth frometernityandwill last forever, just like it is revealedboth increation,intheOldTestamentchurchandbytheapostles.Chemnitzalsomakesitclearthatrenewalhappensaccordingtothepreceptsofthemorallaw.

The last chapter before Chemnitz expounds the individual commands of theDecalog, is the chapter on thepromulgationoftheDecalog.HehereshowshowtheknowledgeofthelawdidnotbeginwithMoses,butwasrevealedalreadyincreation,butalsotothechurchinthepre-flood-era.WewilljumptoChemnitz’treatmentofthethirduseofthelaw.

TheusesofthelawThefirstuseofthelawaccordingtoChemnitzistheciviluse.Thefirstorciviluseofthelawisto“compeltheunregeneratetoobeyorbe forcedunderthedoctrineof thedivine law,sothattheydonotcommitoutwardsins.”21Theciviluseisinotherwordsonlydirectedtotheunbelievers.Theseconduseistheuseofthelawthatrelatestojustificationandthethirdusepertainstothosewhohavebeenjustifiedorbornagain.22

TherearenotthreeusesofthelawfortheChristian,accordingtoMartinChemnitz.Thereisonethreefolduse.ThethreeusesaccordingtoChemnitzaredistinguishedaccordingtothepersonstheyrelateto.SothereisreallynofirstorseconduseofthelawfortheChristian.Insteadthethirduseisthreefold.

Chemnitzthenfurthermakesadistinctioninthethirduse:

Itisthreefold:(1)Itpertainstodoctrineandobediencethattheregenerateshouldknow,astheyperformtheirworship,whatkindofworksarepleasingtoGod,sothattheydonotdevisenewformsofworshipwithout theWordandmay learn that it is thewill ofGod that theymakea




10

beginninginobeyingthecommandmentsoftheDecalog.(2)ItisimportantthattheyknowthatthisnormoftheLawshowstheimperfectionanduncleannesswhichstillclingstotheirgoodworks,forotherwisetheymighteasilyfallintoPharisaism.(3)BecauseinthislifetherenewaloftheSpiritdoesnotwhollytakeawayouroldnature,butatthesametimetheoldandthenewmanremain(theoutwardandtheinnerman),thereforethereisausefortheLawintheregeneratethatitmaycontendagainstandcoercetheiroldman;andthebeginningsofthenewobedienceareweakandarenotsupportedbyourwholespiritandmind.”23

Hestartsoutwithwhatwewouldcalltheinformativeuse,thatwhichhasinlaterprotestanttheologybeenseenasthethirduseofthelaw.ButforChemnitzthisionlyapartofthethirduse.

Thesecondpartofthethirduseisthatitshowsusthesinsthatstillclingtothegoodworksoftheregenerate.Thissoundslikethesecondusebutispartofthethird.

Andfinallythelawalsohastocoercetheoldmantoobedience.Thissoundsabitlikethefirstuseofthelaw.InthiswaythelawdoesmotivatetheChristiantoobedience,butonlyasfarasheisasinner.

Subdividingthethirduseinthesethreesub-usesishelpful.

Christiansaredifferentfromnon-ChristiansandweshouldnotspeaktoChristianslikewespeaktoheathens.Ithink Chemnitz gets that. There is a difference between the second use of the law that leads people torepentanceandthelawsforeignworkintheChristianthatleadshimtocontinualrepentance.ThereisalsoadifferencebetweenthefirstuseofthelawthatcoercestheungodlyontheonesideandtheuseofthelawbytheChristianworkingwiththespirittocoercetheoldman.ThenewmandoescooperatewiththeSpiritinthiswork,justlikethenewmanalsorepentswillinglyofhissins.

I think radical Lutherans are missing this point. Even the accusatory and coercing work of the law worksdifferentlyinChristianswhoarebothanewandanoldman.

ItisalsohelpfultoreadtheFormulainlightofthesethreefolddivisionofthethirdusebyoneoftheauthorsoftheFormula.WhiletheFormulafocusesonthedidacticaspectofthethirduse,itdoesmentiontheotheraspectsthatChemnitzmentionshere.IthinkweshouldunderstandtheFormulaaccordingtoMartinChemnitz’threefolddivisionofthethirduse.

ChemnitzongoodworksWeshouldalsolookatChemnitz’treatmentoftheLocusonGoodworks.

ThefirstquestionaskedbyChemnitzinhisLocusontheGoodworksis:“Whichworksmustbedone”?SincetheLutheranreformershadbeenaccusedofforbiddinggoodworks,Chemnitzbeginshistreatmentofthequestionwithabriefoverviewofthereasons,whygoodworksmustbedone.TheLutherandoctrinedoesnotgivetheregenerateanylicensetosin,butdemandstheiradherencetohiscommandments.Thefaiththatisnotactivein


11

loveisadeadfaith,andtheLutheranchurchpreachesthethreatsofpunishmenttothose,whowillnotobeyGod’scommandments.24

Chemnitz then considers the controversies regarding this question since the Old testament, ending in thecontroversies of his time with the papists and with the antinomians. He writes regarding the antinomiancontroversy:

InoureratheantinomiansaretryingtooverturntheacceptedteachingregardingthethirduseoftheLawwhichassertsthattheLawhasbeengiventotheregeneratesothatitmightbeanormwhichshowstheworksbywhichGodwillsthatweexerciseobedience.25

Chemnitzconsidersonlywhatlatertheologianswouldcallthedidacticorinformativethirduseofthelawinthisstatement.Sinceheisspeakingaboutsanctificationandgoodworks,Idon’tthinkitnullifieswhathehaswrittenearlierregardingthethreefoldthird-use.

Chemnitzcontinueswithatreatmentofthecorrectunderstandingofthequestionofwhichgoodworksmustbedone.Chemnitzhereelaboratesontheinformativepartofthethirduse:

Inthepsalmsitisalsosaidthatweshould“walkinthewayoftheLord”andthisisexplainedasmeaning,Num.15:39,thatweshouldnotfollowourownthoughtsandcovetouseyes,butratherweshouldrememberthepreceptsoftheLordandthatthosewhodothemwillbeholyuntoGod.26

ThealternativetoanormativeorinformativeuseoftheLawforChristiansisthatChristiansfollowtheirownthoughtsandhearts,whendealingwithmoralissues,insteadoffollowingthecommandmentsofGod.

QuotingEph.2:10,Rom13:9,Gal5:14,1Tim1:5,Chemnitzcontinues:

Therefore,GodhassetforthHiscommandmentsasanormforourgoodworks,andindeed,asHeaffirms,thisnormisabsolutelyperfect.ForHesays,“YoushallnotaddanythingtoMywords,nortakeanythingfromthem,”Deut12:32,cf.Prov.30:5-6;Deut.5:32-33.27

ThenormofgoodworksisthecommandmentsofGod.Andthesecommandmentsarenotpartofthegospel,butpartofthelaw.Chemnitzclarifiesthis,ashecontinues:

ButtheteachingprescribingwhichworkshavebeencommandedbyGodforustodo,properlyspeaking,isnottheGospelbuttheLawortheDecalog,whichmustbeunderstoodaccordingtotheinterpretationoftheprophets,ofChrist,andoftheapostles,aswehaveatsomelengthsetforththisinterpretationaboveinthelocusconcerningtheLaw.Thisdivinelaw,therefore,mustbe




12

andremainthenormforourgoodworks,sothat itmayteachusconcerningour imperfection,eventhoseofuswhohavebeenbornagain.28

Whilethegospelmotivatesustogoodworks,thenormofgoodworksisthelawandnotthegospel.Tryingtoforcethisroleonthegospel,turnsitintoalaw.

ThethirdpointofChemnitztreatmentofthisquestionrefutescertainargumentsofopponents.Amongotherarguments,Chemnitzrefutesanantinomianargumenthere:

V.Theyarguethattheregenerateare“ledbytheSpiritofGod,”Rom8:14,and“theyshouldwalkintheSpirit,”Gal5:16.ButtheSpirit isacompletelyfreeagent;thereforetheobedienceoftheregenerateisnotboundtotheWordwhichstandsinScripture.

Ireply:AlthoughtheregenerateareledbytheSpirit,yettheSpiritdoesnotguidethemwithoutmeans,fortheWordofGodisthe“ministrationoftheSpirit,”asPaulteachesin2Cor.3:3.IntheOldTestamentinJer.31:33Godpromises,“IwillputMylawintheirinwardpartsandIwillwriteitintheirheart.”FromthisitisevidentthattheSpiritoftheLordleadsthebelieverstothelawoftheLord,andheguidesanddirectstheirworksaccordingtoitsprescription.29

ToargueagainsttheexternallawofGodasaruleandnormoftheregenerateisakindofspiritualism,wheretheSpiritissupposedtoworkwithoutmeans.

Thisdoesn’tmeanthatthelawisthemeansofsanctification.TheLawdoesnotmotivatetheregeneratetogoodworksasfarasheisregenerate.

Thesecondquestionaboutgoodworksis,“Whatkindofgoodworksshouldtheregenerateperform,andhowcantheybedone?”.HereChemnitzclarifiesthattheuseofthelawbytheregeneratedoesnotimplythatthelawalsoworksthegoodworksofthebeliever:

ForthethingswhichhavebeencommandedbyGodnotonlymustbedone,buttheyaretobedoneinthewaywhichGodprescribed.Althoughwemustgrantaplacetotheeducativeelementforthesakeofexternaldiscipline,yetitisabsolutelynecessarythatweteachthedoctrineofgoodworksinsuchawaythatwecallattentiontothedistinctionbetweenancientphilosophersandtheirideaofvirtues,togetherwiththegoodworksofthePhariseesontheonehandandthetrulygoodworksoftheregenerateontheotherhand,notonlywithregardtothematerialcausebutespeciallywithreferencetotheefficientandformalcause.30

AfterhavingshownhowaccordingtoScriptureandLutherthegoodworksareproducedbythespiritasafruitofitsindwellinginthebeliever,Chemnitzconcludesthisquestion:

28 Chemnitz,1989p.578-79


30 Chemnitz,1989p.580-81

13

Butthesethingsareproducedinthereconciledpersonbynolaws,nopowersofthesoul,butonlybytherenewalandworkoftheHolySpirit,asPaulsobeautifullyincludesthiswayofspeakingintheclearstatementin1Tim1:5,“Thesumofthecommandmentislovefromapureheart,agoodconscience,andtruefaith.”31

Thelawthereforeisnottheefficientcauseofthegoodworksoftheregenerate.Itisonlythenormaccordingtowhichthegoodworksaretobenormed.Chemnitznowdelvesintothequestionofthenecessityofgoodworks.

Ratherthanspendingtimeonthisquestion,Iwilljumptoatreatisenamed“TheControversyastoWhethertheGoodWorksoftheRegenerateAreNecessary”,thatPolycarpLeyserattachedtotheLoci.

ChemnitzinControversiaDeOperibusRenatorumThistreatisewasdirectedagainstMusculusandothers,whooverreactedtoGeorgMajorsfalsedoctrineongoodworks.MusculuslatersignedtheFormulaofConcordandconfessedthetruedoctrineofthenecessityofgoodworksandofthethirduseofthelaw.IwillconcentrateonChemnitz`treatmentoftheuseofthelawfortheregenerateinthistreatise.

Thethirdquestioninthistreatiseisrelevantforourquestion:

MusttheLawbepresentedtotheregenerateinsuchawaythatit isthenormandruleforthegoodworksinwhichGodwillsthatwecarryoutourobediencetohim?32

ChemnitzanswersthequestionbyquotingtheAugsburgConfessionarticle20:

““Ourpeoplearefalselyaccusedofprohibitinggoodworks.FortheirwritingswhicharestillextantregardingtheTenCommandmentsandotherpointstestifywithasimilar lineofargumentthattheytaughtusefullyandproperlyconcerningallkindsanddutiesoflifeastowhichkindsandwhichworks in any individual vocationwere pleasing to God.” That is, the Lawmust set before theregenerateinorderthatitmayteachcertainworksinwhichGodwillsthatwecarryoutobediencetohim.33

IthinkChemnitzisrightthatthethirduseofthelawisalreadytaughtinTheAugsburgConfession.ThelawortheDecalogisthenormofthegoodworksthatGoddemands.

Againstthis,theantinomianshaveputstatementsbyLuthersayingthattheregeneratedoesgoodworkswithoutthelaw.Againstthemisuseofthesequotes,Chemnitzargues:

It is completely true that the Holy Spirit renews the heart and causes us to will and to giveobediencetoGod.Therefore,doesGodwillthattheregeneratebytheirownprivatewisdomandintentionoroutofhumantraditionsthinkupself-madereligionsandpeculiarworkswhichthey

31 Chemnitz,1989p.581.



14

presenttoGodastheobedienceduehim?Theanswerisadefiniteno!ForPaulexpresslycondemns“man-madereligions”inCol.2:23.34

Inotherwords,theexternalwordshouldgovernalsothegoodworksoftheregenerate.Chemnitzcontinuesbyshowingthatthisexternalwordcannotbethegospel:

ButnowtheGospeldoesnotestablishnewlaws,butwhenthehearthasbeenrenewed,sothatitwillsandtriestoobeyGod,thentoanswerthequestionwhatthoseworkswerewhich“Godhaspreparedbeforehandthatweshouldwalkinthem,”Eph.2:10,thenitsendsusbacktothedivinelawwhichisthelawgoverningouractionsorworks,Rom3:27.35

In otherwords, the gospel doesnot tell uswhat todo,whenwewant todo goodworks.While the gospelmotivatesustogoodworks,itcannotshowuswhatthegoodworksare.ThatwouldturntheGospelintoanewlaw.

Chemnitzcontinuesbyshowinghowitleadstoenthusiasm,whenoneclaimsthattheregeneratesdonotneedthelawtoshowthem,whichgoodworks,theymustdo:

The Spirit of renewal does not act through enthusiastswho have been caught upwithout themeansofgrace,butthroughthisdoctrine,whichhehaswrittenintheheartsofmenandwhichsoundsforthintheproclamationoftheministry.36

Thisisanimportantpoint,Ithink.Ifthelawdoesnotshowtheregeneratewhatgoodworksheistodo,thenweendupinspiritualism.

Chemnitzelaboratesfurtheronthispoint:

Butthequestionat issueisthis:DoestheHolySpiritworkthisthroughenthusiasmwithouttheministrationoftheWord?TheansweristhatGodhassetforthHislaw,prohibitions,instructions,promises,andexamplesofbothpunishmentsandrewardsinorderthatthroughtheministrationormeansoftheHolySpiritHemightmortifyandcrucifytheoldman.Butifthislawistoberemovedfromthechurchoftheregenerateinthislife,agreatpartofScripturewillbemutilated.37

Whiletheformerquoteagainstenthusiasmunderscoredthe lawasnorm,thisquoteunderscoresthe lawasmortifyingandcrucifyingtheoldman,whichistheaspectofthethirdusesclosesttothefirstuse.

Therefore,wearenottoteachtheregeneratethatwhentheyhavereceivedthefirststirringsoftheHolySpirit,theyarealreadysecureandatease,withoutanyfurtherthoughtormeditationon




15

theWord,withoutanyconcernorstruggletobeexpended,until,throughsomeenthusiasticandviolentinspiration,theyarecarriedupintogoodworks.38

Again,ifwearenottopreachthelawtotheregenerate,weendupinenthusiasmwherethebasisofgoodworksissomekindofspiritualexperiencewithouttheword.IthinkChemnitzisrighthere.Becauseoftheoldman,wemustkeepmeditatingonthelawandfightingagainsttheoldman.

Chemnitz continues his treatment by explaining certain quotes from Luther. Here Chemnitz explains thedifferencebetweentheoldandthenewman:

…Lutherclearlysaysthattheoldmanmustbeforced,oppressed,pushed,andcompelledbytheLawsothathenotdoevil,butthenewmanhasthegraceofrenewalbywhichcoercionhebeginstodelightinthelawofGod.39

Thelawmustcoercetheoldman,whilethenewmandelightsinthelaw.SothenewmanintheChristianonlyneedsthelawtotellhimwhatgoodworkstodo.Buttheoldmanneedsthelawinordertobecoerced.

ItisclearthattheciviluseoftheLaw,whichcoercestheungodlywiththreatsandforcetobringabout external discipline aside from any true feeling of the mind, has no place among theregenerate insofaras theyare regenerate. For the Spirit hasalready renewed theheartwhichbeginstodelightinthelawofGod,beginstowillandtotrytoobeywiththemind.Similarly,thosewho have been justified have been freed from the accusation and condemnation of the LawthroughfaithforthesakeofChrist….ButifsomeoneshouldinferfromthisthatthereforetheLawfortheregeneratemustnotbeanormforgoodworks,thenheissurelyinerrorandhassimplygottenhislogicwrong.40

ChemnitzheredeniesthatthefirstandseconduseofthelawhaveanyusefortheChristian.InthatwaytheChristianisfreedfromthelaw.Butthelawisstillanormofgoodworks.AndweshouldnotinferfromthisquoteofChemnitzthatthethirduseofthelawdoesnotshowusoursinsorcoercetheoldmaninus.Itdoes,butitdoesn’tcondemntheChristianasitcondemnstheUnchristian.

CertainlytheverysadexampleofthelibertariansamongtheAnabaptistsandtheterriblecrimeswhichtookplaceamongthemasaresultofawarpedunderstandingoffreedomfromtheLaw,thatisfromthecommandmentsofGod,oughttowarnus.41

ChemnitzwarnsagainstthosewhothinkthatChristiansarefreefromthecommandmentsofthelawandnotonlyfromthecondemnationofthelaw.Ithinkheisrightthatthedenialofthethirduseofthelawultimatelyleadstoanantinomianism,wherepeopleliveaccordingtotheflesh.


40 Chemnitz,1989p.606-7


16

ThethirduseofthelawaccordingtotheFormulaofConcordDoesthetreatmentofthethirduseofthelawintheFormulaofConcordcorrespondtoChemnitz’treatmentofthesubjectinhisLoci.

ThestatuscontroversiaaccordingtotheEpitomeoftheFormulaofConcordisthefollowing:

SincetheLawwasgiventomenforthreereasons:first,thattherebyoutwarddisciplinemightbemaintainedagainstwild,disobedientmen[andthatwildandintractablemenmightberestrained,asthoughbycertainbars];secondly,thatmentherebymaybeledtotheknowledgeoftheirsins;thirdly,thataftertheyareregenerateand[muchof]thefleshnotwithstandingcleavestothem,theymightonthisaccounthaveafixedruleaccordingtowhichtheyaretoregulateanddirecttheirwholelife,adissensionhasoccurredbetweensomefewtheologiansconcerningthethirduseoftheLaw,namely,whetheritistobeurgedornotuponregenerateChristians.Theonesidehassaid,Yea;theother,Nay.42

ThustheEpitomementionsboththatthethirduseisausefortheregenerateandthatitistobeafixedruleaccordingtowhichtheyshouldruletheirlives.Thisatleastincludesadidacticthirduse,butitdoesn’tnecessarilylimitthethirdusetoadidacticuse.TheStatusControversiaaccordingtotheSolidDeclarationalsofocusesonthedidacticornormativeuseofthelawfortheregenerate.43

Intheiranswertothecontroversy,boththeEpitomeandtheSolidDeclarationsaysmoreaboutthethirduse.TheEpitomesaysthatthelawisneededfortheregenerate…

…inorderthattheymaynotfromhumandevotion institutewantonandself-electedcults[thattheymayframenothinginamatterofreligionfromthedesireofprivatedevotion,andmaynotchoosedivineservicesnot institutedbyGod'sWord]; likewise, that theoldAdamalsomaynotemploy his own will, but may be subdued against his will, not only by the admonition andthreateningoftheLaw,butalsobypunishmentsandblows,sothathemayfollowandsurrenderhimselfcaptivetotheSpirit,1Cor.9:27;Rom.6:12,Gal.6:14;Ps.119:1ff;Heb.13:21(Heb.12:1).44

42 TriglottaFCEpVI1,http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#part6.1

43 Fortheonesidetaughtandmaintainedthattheregeneratedonotlearnthenewobedience,orinwhatgoodworkstheyoughttowalk,fromtheLaw,andthatthisteaching[concerninggoodworks]isnottobeurgedthence[fromthelaw],becausetheyhavebeenmadefreebytheSonofGod,havebecomethetemplesofHisSpirit,andthereforedofreelyofthemselveswhatGodrequiresofthem,bythepromptingandimpulseoftheHolyGhost,justasthesunofitself,withoutany[foreign]impulse,completesitsordinarycourse.Overagainstthistheothersidetaught:AlthoughthetrulybelievingareverilymovedbyGod'sSpirit,andthus,accordingtotheinnerman,doGod'swillfromafreespirit,yetitisjusttheHolyGhostwhousesthewrittenlawforinstructionwiththem,bywhichthetrulybelievingalsolearntoserveGod,notaccordingtotheirownthoughts,butaccordingtoHiswrittenLawandWord,whichisasureruleandstandardofagodlylifeandwalk,howtoorderitinaccordancewiththeeternalandimmutablewillofGod.Triglotta,FCSDVIp.2-3

44 TriglottaFCEpVIp.4

17

HereisincludedbothadidacticfunctionofthethirduseandafunctionsimilartothefirstuseincoercingtheoldAdamagainsthiswilltodotheworksofthelaw.

TheSolidDeclarationalsoincludesafunctionofthethirdusethatissimilartotheseconduse,whenafterhavingexplainedhowtheHolySpiritusesthetenCommandmentstoshowtheregeneratewhatgoodworksare:

Heexhortsthemthereto,andwhentheyareidle,negligent,andrebelliousinthismatterbecauseoftheflesh,HereprovesthemonthataccountthroughtheLaw,sothatHecarriesonbothofficestogether:Heslaysandmakesalive;Heleadsintohellandbringsupagain.ForHisofficeisnotonlytocomfort,butalsotoreprove,asitiswritten:WhentheHolyGhostiscome,Hewillreprovetheworld(whichincludesalsotheoldAdam)ofsin,andofrighteousness,andofjudgment.45

Andagain,TheSolidDeclarationsays:

So, too, the doctrine of the Law, in andwith [the exercise of] the goodworks of believers, isnecessaryforthereasonthatotherwisemancaneasilyimaginethathisworkandlifeareentirelypureandperfect.ButtheLawofGodprescribestobelieversgoodworksinthisway,thatitshowsandindicatesatthesametime,asinamirror,thatinthislifetheyarestillimperfectandimpureinus,sothatwemustsaywiththebelovedPaul,1Cor.4:4:Iknownothingbymyself;yetamInotherebyjustified.46

TheFormulaofConcordthereforeincludesbothadidactic,amirroringandacoercingfunction,whenitdescribestheuseofthelawfortheregenerate.

ThebasisofthethirduseisaccordingtotheEpitome:

Thus the Law is and remains both to the penitent and impenitent, both to regenerate andunregeneratemen,one[andthesame]Law,namely,theimmutablewillofGod.47

ThereasonwhywemustconfessauseofthelawfortheregenerateisthatthelawisboththeeternallawofGodandthewillofGod.ThelawisnotonlygiveninordertoreprovemanbutistheeternalexpressionofthewillofGod.

Whenthethirduseisdenied,thisviewofthelawastheimmutablewillofGodisalsooftendenied,whichleadstoadenialoftheworkofChristasanatoningworkthatmakesmanrighteousaccordingtothelaw.Aswewillsee later,atheologianasStevenPaulson,whoiscelebratedamongconservativeLutherans,deniesthepenalsubstitutionofChristandaccusesthis theoryofbeing legalistic,because it isbasedonseeingthe lawastheimmutablewillofGod.

45 TriglottaFCSDVI12

46 TriglottaFCSDVI21

47 TriglottaFCEpVI7

18

ThepositionofChemnitzandtheFormulaofConcordLetusbrieflysummarizethepositionofMartinChemnitzandtheFormulaofConcordregardingthedoctrineofthelawasitrelatestothethirduse.

TheLawofGodsistheimmutableandeternalwillofGod.ItisgroundedintheeternalwisdomofGodsothatitexistsfrometernityandtoeternity.Itdemandsobediencebutitonlythreatensthosewhobreakit.

SinisdefinedasbreakingthelawofGod,andmanneedsasaviorbecauseoftheangerofGodagainstthosewhobreakthelaw.Therefore,bothsinandredemptionaredefinedaccordingtothelaw.Sinisthebreakingofthelawandredemptionisredemptionfromtheconsequencesofbreakingthelaw.Itisnotredemptionfromthelawitself,whichwillstandforeternity.

AftertheFallthelawisneededfortheunregeneratetocoercehimtoexternaldiscipline.ItisalsoneededbytheunregeneratetoshowhimhissinsothathemaybelieveinChristastheredeemerfromsin.

Theregeneratealsoneedsthelawbecausetheoldmanstillclingstohim.TheChristianneedsthelawforthreepurposes:1)Asanormofgoodworks,becausetheoldmancloudshismind,2)asameanstocoercetheoldmantoobedienceagainsthiswilland3)asamirrorthatshowstheChristianthesinsthatstillclingtohim.

The failuretoteachthethirduseof the law leadsChristians toenthusiasmwheretheywait for theSpirit tosomehowenlightenthemwithouttheexternalwordofthelaw.Italsoleadstolibertarianism,whenChristiansliveaccordingtothefleshbecausetheydon’thearthedemandsofthelaw.Finally,italsoleadstofalsedoctrineof justification,because it is impossible tounderstand justificationasa forensicactofGodwithoutaproperunderstandingofthelawastheeternalwillofGod

StevenPaulson’stheologyofthelawTheLegalScheme

PaulsonstartsoutcompletelydifferentlyfromChemnitz.WhileChemnitzstartswiththeeternallaw,towhichmanowesobedience,Paulsonstartssomewhereelse:

Lutherantheologybeginsnotasanattackonourknowledgeofthegood,itisattackinggooditselfalongwiththeheartsofrighteouspeoplewho“provingthemselvestobewise,becamefools”(Rom1:22).48

ForPaulson,man’sfundamentalproblemisnothisdisobedienceagainsttheeternal law,buthisattemptstojustifyhimselfthroughalegalscheme.Whileitistruethatsinfulmanalwaystriestojustifyhimselfbythelaw,thisisnotaproblemcreatedbythelaw,butaproblemcreatedbyman’ssinagainstthelaw.

ThereisatemptationinLutherantheologytomakethelawinsteadofsinthefundamentalproblem,becauselegalismisthemainproblemthatLutheranismreactedagainst.Paulsonfallsintothistemptation.

Hedoesthatbynamingthefundamentalproblemofman“TheLegalScheme”:

48 Paulson2011p.1

19

The legalschemerefers tothat teleologicalpictureof lifeasa ladderonwhich life isa typeofmotionfromearthslowestleveltothehighestheavenbymeansoftheexerciseofthefreewillthateitherrefusesthelawandfailstoreachitspropergoaloracceptsthelawandfulfillsitinordertoarriveatthelifeofglory.49

Thelegalschemeherecouldrefertojustwhatwewouldtermlegalism–theattempttobejustifiedthroughgoodworks.ButPaulsongoesfurtherthanthat:

Human reason is revoltedby the thought that thereare two kinds of righteousness, legal andfiduciary,andthetwoarenotcomplementary.TheystandineternalanddeadlyoppositionsothatanystrivingforvirtueendsbycrucifyingGodwhenhecomestoliveamongus.50

ForPaulsonbothlawandgospelastwokindsofrighteousnessexistfrometernityandareinoppositiontoeachother.Hecontinues:

…Lutheransassertthattherearetwokindsofrighteousness,bothfromGod,withonlyonethatstandsbeforeGod.51

Andagain:

But there are two separate justifications. The first justifies according to the law (which holdsamonghumansawhile),butdoesnotsufficebeforeGod–indeedthatlawwasusedtokillGod’sonlybegottenSonwhenhecameintotheworld.ThesecondkindofjustificationisChristwhogiveshimselftohisopponentsintheformofasimplepromise:Iforgiveyou.52

Sothefallintosinwasnotman’sbreakingofthelaw,andthegospelisnotthesolutiontoman’sbreakingofthelaw. The gospel is the solution to the law itself – to the legal scheme. Therewas no original righteousnessaccordingtoPaulson:

ThelegalSchemeassumesthatitknowswhatdeathisbecauseitimaginesthatthefreewilloncestoodasamasterofsin,“abletosinandablenottosin”…53

WhilePaulsonhasbeenaccusedofdenyingthefall54,Ithinktheproblemisratherthatheredefinesitaccordingtothisbasicoppositionofthelegalschemeandthegospel.Paulsonexplainsthefallthisway:

49 Paulson2011p.3

50 Paulson2011p.451 Paulson2011p.5

52 Paulson2011p.5

53 Paulson2011p.158

54 Soforexample:Phillips,Erichttp://www.pseudepigraph.us/2015/09/15/no-friend-of-confessional-lutherans-steven-paulsons-heresies/

20

WewantedGod“above”,whichisametaphorforinhimself,withouthiswords,inthepurestformofmathematicallawandthustheFallis“upward,”notdownwardintosin.55

ItseemstomethattheFallinPaulson’stheologyisratherafallinto“TheLegalScheme”fromastateofgraceinwhichmanwasalreadynotablenottosin.

TherelationofthelawtoGod’swrathandatonementHowisthelawthenrelatedtoGod’swrathaccordingtoPaulson?PaulsoninterpretsLuther’sexperienceasamonkaccordingtoPaulson’sframework:

God’swrathwassupra-legal,biggerthanitshouldhavebeenaccordingtothelaw;itoperatedoutsidereason,outsidefreewill,outsidetheprocessofgoingdowninordertogoup.Whenthisdawned on Luther hewas forced to conclude that God’swill, the good and the lawwere notsynonymous.56

SoGod’swrathisnotthereactiontoman’ssinagainsttheeternalanimmutablewillofGod.

Paulsondescribesthefalseunderstandingofthelawbeforethepreachingoftheapostles:

Moralityand reasonboth reston theattempt to limitGod’swrathbymaking itarithmeticallyproportional to wickedness, and therefore by implication, if one does what the law demands(whetherwrittenintheheartortabletsofstone),God’swrathshouldcease.57

AccordingtoPaulson,God’swrathisnottheconsequenceofMan’sbreakingofthelaw.ButwhatistheroleofthelawthenaccordingtoPaulson?Paulsoncontinues:

Thelawistheresothatwhatitdemandscannotbedone.SinisGod’swithdrawaloftheHolySpiritthathandsusovertofreewill;thegivingofthelawisthedivineactofwithdrawalofthe”freewill”.58

WhileitistruethatGodrevealedhislawtomankindpartlyinordertorevealman’ssinfulnessbyshowinghimthatheisnotabletofulfillthelaw,thisismadethepurposeofthelawitselfbyPaulson.

Thelaw,accordingtoPaulson,ishowevereternal:

Thelawremainseternally,butitisnotaneternallawinthesenseofrulingormakinganydemandsonChristians–norisittheverymindofGoditself.59

55 Paulson2011,p.74

56 Paulson2011,p.42.57 Paulson2011p.79

58 Paulson2011p.83

59 Paulson2011p.224

21

HerePaulsonrejectsthetraditionalunderstandingofthelawasfoundedinthemindofGod.SincethelawisnottheexpressionofthemindofGod,itdoesn’tmakedemandsonChristianseither.AccordingtoPaulsonthelawisnottheimmutablewillofGod,astheFormulaofConcorddescribesit.ThisunderstandingofthelawwouldbeapartofwhatPaulsonterms“thelegalscheme”.

Therefore,Christ`ssacrificeisnothissatisfactionofthedemandsofthelawandhisappeasingofthewrathofGod:

Accordingtothelegalscheme,siniseitheralack(debt)thatmustbecompensatedbeforethelawcanbesatisfied(fulfilled),orsinisacrimethatmustbepunished.WhenChristhimselfispushedintothelegalschemeitspractitionersdemandChristmakepaymentfordebt,absorbpunishment,orprovide compensation to thosedeprivedof theirgoods (like thedevil, the law,or evenGodhimself)ifheisgoingtoserveasatruemediatorbetweenGodandsinners.TheoriesofatonementdevelopedasameansofmakingthecrossofChristfitintothislegalscheme.ItistruethatChristpaysdebt,sufferspunishment,andpaysransomtotheoldlordsofthisworld,butnottoletthelegalschemerule.60

Andagain:

SoChristcouldrightlybesaidtohavediedforoursakeswithoutattemptingtoexplainsomethingthelawrequired,orevensomethingthatGodneededforhisownpurity’ssake.61

BecausethelawisnottheimmutablewillofGodnorfoundedinthemindofGod,accordingtoPaulson,thereisnoneedforapenalsubstitutionorvicarioussatisfaction.Suchwouldbeareturntothelegalscheme.

Paulson’s theory of atonement, which he has learned from Forde, comes close to the subjective theory ofatonement:

Forde suggested we think of Christ’s crucifixion as an accident like those stories of someonestepping in and taking the blow of an oncoming truckwhile throwing an endangered child tosafety….TheaccidentofChrist’sdeathwascausedbyussinnerswho, likethetruckdriver,aredetermined to get to our highest goal atwhatever speed necessary, even at the cost of theirneighbor’slife.62

Itisnotentirelyclearwhatthispicturemeans,butclearly,Paulsonrejectsanytheoryofatonement,inwhichChristsatisfiesthedemandsofthelawonbehalfofmankind,suchasChemnitzteaches.

TheChristianandthelawInthechapteronfreedomfromthelaw,Paulsonshowshisfunctionalviewofthelawveryclearly:

60 Paulson2011p.91

61 Paulson2011,p.233

62 Paulson2011p.233

22

WhenChristisobedienttotheFatheritisnotmerelyasynonymofobediencetothelaw.WhenGodandlawaredistinguished,Godisthesubject,andthelawishisinstrumenttouse.63

HecontinuestodescribehowGodhasgiventhelawwithadefinitepurposeinmindandhowitismisused,whenpeopleuseitasanexpressionofGodswill.

Paulsoncontinuestodescribehowpartoftheproblemisthedifferencebetweenthefleshandthespirit,theoldandthenewman.ThisisimportantforunderstandingPaulson:

TheOldAdamandNewCreaturearenottwopartsofawhole.Theyaretwodistinctholes,sincenothingismoreseparatedthanwhendeathstandsbetweenthem.64

Thissoundscorrect.Theregeneratehasbothanoldandanewnature.IdothinkhoweverthatPaulsonfailstoseetheChristianasawholepersonwiththeoldnatureclingingtohim.

YourjobasaChristianisnottointegrateyouralienatedpersonorseekauthenticityorusethelawto get rid of remaining sin. In fact, your freedom is that you don’t have to worry about thatanymore.65

AccordingtoPaulsonthelawhasnopositivevalueinsanctification.Itsonlypurposeistorevealsin.Itdoesn’trevealthelawofGodanditdoesn’thelpyouinthefightagainstsin.

Whereisthelaw’splace?Itdoesnotbelongintheinnerheart,itbelongsintheexternalmemberslikehandsandfeet–theouterselforoldself.66

IFwetrytoputthebestconstructiononthis,onemightseethelawaccordingtoPaulsonalsoasameanstocoercetheoldmanagainsthiswill.ButitisbynomeanstobeseenashavinganormativeordidacticusefortheChristian.

Its“fault”,ifasinnermustlookatitthatway,isthatitgivesnopathtorighteousnessbecauseitisnotChrist.ButPaulknowsbetter.Thelawwasneverforrighteousness.ThelawisnotsupposedtobeChrist,onlyChristisChrist.Lawisspiritual,notincarnate.Itpointsoutsins,itcan’ttakethemfromyou.67

Again,theonlypurposeofthelawistorevealsin.Itdoesn’trevealthewillofGodbutonlythesinsofman.Therewasneveratime,whenthelawwasaguidetorighteousnessaccordingtoPaulson.Thelawspurposewasalwaystoincreasesinandrevealsin:

63 Paulson2011p.174


66 Paulson2011p.181

67 Paulson2011p.183

23

WhenlawenteredintotheoldAeonitdidnotdecreasesin,butincreasedit.Whenlawentersafterbaptism(thenewAeon)itdoestheexactsamethingitalwaysdid–foritcannotdoanythingelse.Itrevivessin,whichotherwisewasdead.68

ThelawthereforeisnotanormfortheChristian,butisonlyrevivingsinandaccusingthesinner.Thebaptizedarenofriendsofthelaw.Theyonlydelightinthelawinsofarasthelawispast:

The lawofGod isservedwiththesoul,because itsdelight is inthefactthatthe lawisalreadyfulfilledbyChrist,andthusthelawhasnomoreaccusationtomake.Thedelightthebaptizedtakeinthelawisinfactthatthelawisfinallypast.69

Paulsonapplieshisviewtotheantinomiancontroversy:

OnceAgricolagavefaithbacktolovetherewasnodifferencebetweenhisteachingandRome’s.Antinomianism is ‘nomian’ (legal scheme) in theend. Love sounds like thegospel, but it is theepitomeoflaw.70

IthinkPaulsonisrightinhisanalysisoftheantinomiancontroversy.WhentheuseofthelawfortheChristianisdenied,youendupturningthegospelintoanewlawasAgricoladid.Aswewillseelater,Ithink,howeverthathedoesexactlythesamethingheaccusesAgricolaof.

Commentingontheantinomiancontroversy,Paulsonexplicitlydeniesthethirduseofthelaw:

MelanchthonmadeacareerofdisputingtheAntinomianposition,andquitepossiblylosttheforestforthetreesbydefendingtheroleofthelawinteachingafterbaptismbyintroducinganoveltycalled“thethirduse”ofthelawasaguidetoChristiansthatutterlyconfusedPaul’suseoftheSimulandfreedomfromthelaw.71

ThisisconsistentwithPaulson’sviewofthelawashavingonlyanaccusingpurposeandhisdenialofitbeinganexpressionofthemindandwillofGod.

SothefreedomfromthelawmeanstoPaulsonthatthelaw`sonlypurpose–evenforChristians–istorevivesinandaccusethesinner.ItisnotaguidethatshowswhichgoodworkstheChristianistodo.

Wewillturntothechapter,wherePaulsontalksabouttheFruitofFaith.ThischapterisacommentonRomans12,wherePaulappealstohisreaderstodogoodworks:

68 Paulson2011p.18369 Paulson2011p.183-184

70 Paulson2011p.186

71 Paulson2011p.224-225

24

Moralityisruinedintheprocess;afterall,howdoesonemakeanappealforgoodworksoncethelegalschemeisbankrupt?72

Theappealtodogoodworksisnotinanywaybasedonthelaw,accordingtoPaulson:

Butafterarticulatinghowfaithisgiventhroughpreaching,Paulseamlesslysays:“Iappealtoyoutherefore…”BecausethelawhasindeedendedinChrist,thereforetheappealismade.73

Paulsappeal therefore isnotonly seeking tomotivate togoodworksby thegospel,but theappeal ismadeexactlybecausethelawispast.

Theappeal ismadebecausefaith isstruggle–nottodo,buttotrust(inperfectpassivity)thatChristdoesnotlie.74

TheappealisanappealtoliveasaNewCreaturewithoutthelaw,withoutthelegalscheme,whichonlyrevivessin.

ThenPaulsonreturnstothelawasAgricoladid:

Love,itturnsout,iseitherunderstoodinrelationtothelaw–inwhichcaseitisaworkandcannotbearourtrust–oritissimplywhathappenswhenChristhasforgivenasinner.LoveisafreedomoftheSpiritwhichrefusestobeboggeddownintheletterofanylaw…75

PaulsonisrightthattheChristian`sloveisnotmotivatedbythelaw.Butthisdoesn’tchangethefactthatlovefulfillsthelaw,whichPaulclearlysaysinthechapter,Paulsoniscommentingon.Anditdoesn’tchangethefactthatweneedthelawtoshowuswhatloveis,becausetheoldmancloudsourmind.Whenthelawasaguidetogoodworksisdenied,andanappealismadetothefreedomoftheSpiritinstead,weenduptheenthusiasmthatChemnitzwarnsusagainst.

Paulsonendsupmixinglaw-elementsintothegospelandheendsupinenthusiasm,wherethenormofgoodworksisnotthelaw,butthefreelovecreatedbytheSpirit.

ConclusionI canunderstandwhyPaulsonand the radical Lutheransareappealing toconfessionalLutherans.They reactagainst legalismandpietism, just likeconfessionalLutheransdo. In theend,however, I think theyendup insubjectivismandlegalismthemselves.

WhenwecompareStevenPaulsontoMartinChemnitzitisclearthatthereisagreatdivide.ForChemnitz,man’sproblemishisrevoltagainstGod’slaw.AndGod’ssolutionisthatChristpaysthedebtofmanunderthelaw.


74 Paulson2011p.231

75 Paulson2011p.236

25

Chemnitz’wholeapproachisbasedonthefactthatthelawisGod’seternalwillandanexpressionofGod’smind.Therefore,thelawisimmutable,andboththeatonementandjustificationhastobeexplainedaccordingtothelaw.Penalsubstitutionandforensicjustificationarelegaltermsandbasedonalegalscheme.

ForPaulson,thelegalscheme,thatChemnitzbaseshistheologyon,istheproblemofman.AccordingtoPaulson,theonlypurposeofthelawistorevivesinandtherebyrevealthatitisfutiletotrytobesavedaccordingtothelegalscheme.

Paulsonmakesitveryclearthathethereforeseesthetheoryofpenalsubstitutionasanexpressionofthelegalscheme.

It is no surprise, therefore, that Paulson also rejects the third use of the law.He does that because he hasdifferentunderstandingofboththelawandsalvation.

We could go intoother aspects of StevenPaulson`s theology.Dr. Eric Phillips haspointedout thatmuchofPaulson`stheologyisbasedontheFlacianerror.Hemayberight.Ihavelimitedmyselftohisdoctrineofthelaw,becausethisistheaspectofhistheologythatisappealingmosttoconfessionalLutherans.

IdothinkthatitmighthavebeenhelpfulalsotocomparehisunderstandingofmanbeforeandaftertheFallandbeforeandafterbaptismtothatofChemnitz.Thatmightbeasubjectforanotherpaper.

3. the third use is threefold 2016 - amazon web servicesfiles-theology.s3.amazonaws.com/2016...

Documents